> Is that even what well regulated means?
Yes, SCOTUS has said several times that "well regulated" means "laws can be written to regulate, but not remove" the right to bear arms. Thus in the US there is no right to anything that's known as "crew serviced" -- like a canon, which requires more than one person, typically, to make it work. Or for that matter, automatic weapons, or shotguns with barrels shorter than 16" ... the list is endless. Did you click on the list of people who cannot possess guns in California?
If you are the subject of a temporary restraining order, for instance. If that's not regulation, I don't know what is.
> I'd always assumed well-regulated meant that they were disciplined
> and trained as _militia_ not that the guns were "regulated."
Well, you know what happens when you assume ...
The Militia is specifically NOT the trained armed forces. They are the whole of the people (minus the armed forces), expected to have ZERO training.
Oh, well, except women. But still :-)
/jordan